I should be glad that we're coming to the end game of this sad fiasco but it's not remotely resembling being over no matter how close 29 March 2019 gets.

Theresa May.... undoubtedly the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had, has been completely given the run around by the EU and is now trying to flog the dead horse that is the "deal" she has brought back from Brussels.

But before I go on, let's just remind ourselves of some of the promises made during the 2016 referendum campaign:

"£350 million a week to the NHS"
"Britain Holds All The Cards"
"The EU Needs Us More Than We Need Them"
"We Will Have All The Benefits Of Membership Without Paying"
"We Will Get The Easiest Trade Deal In History."

So.... of all the things that Brexit promised, what, exactly does Mrs May's unpolished turd of a "deal" achieve? Let's run a test card against what was promised and what would the document she's hawking to Parliament, if passed, deliver:

Exactly the same benefits as being a member of the Single Market and Customs Union: FAIL

Strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU: FAIL

Fair management of migration in the interests of the economy: FAIL

Defend rights and protections: FAIL

Protect security and capacity to tackle cross border crime: FAIL

Frictionless trade for goods and services: FAIL

Protecting jobs: FAIL

Show the UK to be an open, modern, outward looking tolerant European democracy: EPIC FAIL

Strengthen our union of nations and our people. FAIL AT EVERY LEVEL. (is anyone up for IndyRef 2 in Scotland, or NI joining the Republic of Ireland..?)

The worst of it is, the only alternative to this "deal" is to crash out of the EU with no deal at all and Britain fall under World Trade Organisataion (WTO) rules which will have disastrous consequences for millions of people.

Sure.... if Brexit goes ahead the disaster capitalists will make money out of asset stripping the country. The rich will get very much richer, but working people will suffer appallingly.

Parliament is horribly divided over this and if the deal were being put to the vote today it would crash and burn. Somehow in the next two weeks, Mrs May needs to change the minds of around 60 current No voters around to her side. It is extremely unlikely that she'll achieve even half of that. She certainly won't get any votes from the DUP in Northern Ireland who have been propping up her minority government since last year's FAILED General Election.

The DUP consider May to have sold them down the river and if the "deal" goes down (which it very much looks like doing) there is the very real possibility of a hard border between the north and south of Ireland having to be imposed under WTO rules. This would break the Good Friday Agreement and very possibly bring renewed calls for a united Ireland which, if London turns them down (which it will), could even bring a return to nationalist terrorism.

The only other alternative to the deal/no deal options above is for another People's Vote. In effect, a second referendum. Theresa May has flatly ruled that out, but momentum is gathering and the calls are getting louder. More and more politicians and vast numbers of the public are seeing the wisdom of going down this route.

The problem there for Theresa May is that she is terrified of a cabal of backbench MP's in her own party, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Dedicated, hard line Brexiters on the extreme Right Wing of the party, who must have some dirt on her somewhere because she kowtows to them at every juncture.

Just a few weeks ago, Amanda and I took part in the demonstration and march for a People's Vote in London along with 700'000 others who are heartily sick of Brexit and now feel it just isn't worth it.

We were all lied to massively during the referendum campaign. The promises made during that campaign were conspicuously undeliverable, but were highly seductive to those who thought that somehow we would be getting the Empire back..!!

A People's Vote is the only option that can save the country from itself. It would surely bring about a reversal of the 2016 referendum.

Some argue that it would be undemocratic. Since when has a vote taken, which provides a clear majority, been undemocratic..?

Some argue there isn't time to have a vote before 29 March. Well, the EU has indicated that they would be willing to extend Article 50 beyond 29 March to accommodate another vote.

Some argue that a reversal of the 2016 vote might cause some civil disturbance by miffed Brexiters, but the dire threats of a Civil War, or having to put troops on the streets to quell riots are pretty much unfounded.

So.... another vote is democratically sound, can be held,the fallout contained and a Remain outcome (which is certain) would make all this go away.

Even if Brexit goes ahead on 29 March, the campaign to rejoin the EU begins on 30 March.

We can even thank Trump for giving the second referendum campaign a boost yesterday. Quite inadvertently, I'm sure, but telling the British people that a Free Trade deal with the US is less likely if UK accepts the Theresa May "Deal" (that isn't a deal) was music to Remainer ears.

What he said, in effect, was that in order to be friends with America we have to commit economic suicide for a generation.

He's hoping to influence the No Deal scenario to drive UK even further away from the EU at a time when the public is leaning back towards it. No doubt he was moved to make those comments after listening to the nicotine stained man-frog, Nigel Farage on Fox News yesterday, but hey, for once, I don't mind Trump speaking out like this.

Trump is universally loathed here by all but the extreme.. like, really EXTREME right of British politics. Nobody trusts Trump any further than they could throw a grand piano so if he wants us push us in a direction that we already don't want to go, it's only likely to have the opposite effect.

We all know of Trump's "America First" policy and the level of distrust of the orange baboon means that any free trade deal with the US is going won't be "free" and any trade that comes of it will be heading in only one direction across the big pond.

Keep talking Donald. You're turning more and more Brexiters back towards Remain every time you open your mouth.

I should be glad that we're coming to the end game of this sad fiasco but it's not remotely resembling being over no matter how close 29 March 2019 gets.

Theresa May.... undoubtedly the worst Prime Minister Britain has ever had, has been completely given the run around by the EU and is now trying to flog the dead horse that is the "deal" she has brought back from Brussels.

But before I go on, let's just remind ourselves of some of the promises made during the 2016 referendum campaign:

"£350 million a week to the NHS"
"Britain Holds All The Cards"
"The EU Needs Us More Than We Need Them"
"We Will Have All The Benefits Of Membership Without Paying"
"We Will Get The Easiest Trade Deal In History."

So.... of all the things that Brexit promised, what, exactly does Mrs May's unpolished turd of a "deal" achieve? Let's run a test card against what was promised and what would the document she's hawking to Parliament, if passed, deliver:

Exactly the same benefits as being a member of the Single Market and Customs Union: FAIL

Strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU: FAIL

Fair management of migration in the interests of the economy: FAIL

Defend rights and protections: FAIL

Protect security and capacity to tackle cross border crime: FAIL

Frictionless trade for goods and services: FAIL

Protecting jobs: FAIL

Show the UK to be an open, modern, outward looking tolerant European democracy: EPIC FAIL

Strengthen our union of nations and our people. FAIL AT EVERY LEVEL. (is anyone up for IndyRef 2 in Scotland, or NI joining the Republic of Ireland..?)

The worst of it is, the only alternative to this "deal" is to crash out of the EU with no deal at all and Britain fall under World Trade Organisataion (WTO) rules which will have disastrous consequences for millions of people.

Sure.... if Brexit goes ahead the disaster capitalists will make money out of asset stripping the country. The rich will get very much richer, but working people will suffer appallingly.

Parliament is horribly divided over this and if the deal were being put to the vote today it would crash and burn. Somehow in the next two weeks, Mrs May needs to change the minds of around 60 current No voters around to her side. It is extremely unlikely that she'll achieve even half of that. She certainly won't get any votes from the DUP in Northern Ireland who have been propping up her minority government since last year's FAILED General Election.

The DUP consider May to have sold them down the river and if the "deal" goes down (which it very much looks like doing) there is the very real possibility of a hard border between the north and south of Ireland having to be imposed under WTO rules. This would break the Good Friday Agreement and very possibly bring renewed calls for a united Ireland which, if London turns them down (which it will), could even bring a return to nationalist terrorism.

The only other alternative to the deal/no deal options above is for another People's Vote. In effect, a second referendum. Theresa May has flatly ruled that out, but momentum is gathering and the calls are getting louder. More and more politicians and vast numbers of the public are seeing the wisdom of going down this route.

The problem there for Theresa May is that she is terrified of a cabal of backbench MP's in her own party, led by Jacob Rees-Mogg. Dedicated, hard line Brexiters on the extreme Right Wing of the party, who must have some dirt on her somewhere because she kowtows to them at every juncture.

Just a few weeks ago, Amanda and I took part in the demonstration and march for a People's Vote in London along with 700'000 others who are heartily sick of Brexit and now feel it just isn't worth it.

We were all lied to massively during the referendum campaign. The promises made during that campaign were conspicuously undeliverable, but were highly seductive to those who thought that somehow we would be getting the Empire back..!!

A People's Vote is the only option that can save the country from itself. It would surely bring about a reversal of the 2016 referendum.

Some argue that it would be undemocratic. Since when has a vote taken, which provides a clear majority, been undemocratic..?

Some argue there isn't time to have a vote before 29 March. Well, the EU has indicated that they would be willing to extend Article 50 beyond 29 March to accommodate another vote.

Some argue that a reversal of the 2016 vote might cause some civil disturbance by miffed Brexiters, but the dire threats of a Civil War, or having to put troops on the streets to quell riots are pretty much unfounded.

So.... another vote is democratically sound, can be held,the fallout contained and a Remain outcome (which is certain) would make all this go away.

Seems like the right thing to do to me.

The Brits voted to leave. Why would the EU make it a win for the Brits. You are leaving no matter what. So May can not get any kind of good deal for you no one can IMO

Even if Brexit goes ahead on 29 March, the campaign to rejoin the EU begins on 30 March.

We can even thank Trump for giving the second referendum campaign a boost yesterday. Quite inadvertently, I'm sure, but telling the British people that a Free Trade deal with the US is less likely if UK accepts the Theresa May "Deal" (that isn't a deal) was music to Remainer ears.

What he said, in effect, was that in order to be friends with America we have to commit economic suicide for a generation.

He's hoping to influence the No Deal scenario to drive UK even further away from the EU at a time when the public is leaning back towards it. No doubt he was moved to make those comments after listening to the nicotine stained man-frog, Nigel Farage on Fox News yesterday, but hey, for once, I don't mind Trump speaking out like this.

Trump is universally loathed here by all but the extreme.. like, really EXTREME right of British politics. Nobody trusts Trump any further than they could throw a grand piano so if he wants us push us in a direction that we already don't want to go, it's only likely to have the opposite effect.

We all know of Trump's "America First" policy and the level of distrust of the orange baboon means that any free trade deal with the US is going won't be "free" and any trade that comes of it will be heading in only one direction across the big pond.

Keep talking Donald. You're turning more and more Brexiters back towards Remain every time you open your mouth.

But we HAVE to get that People's vote. That's the tricky bit.

at least we can joke about an orange baboon without fear of being called a bigot

The Brits voted to leave. Why would the EU make it a win for the Brits. You are leaving the EU So May can not get any kind of good deal for you no one can IMO

You are absolutely right. I couldn't agree more. Except for the bit about leaving. That can still be stopped. Not easy, but it can still be done and there is a growing movement to do that very thing. It aint over yet.

But the failure to get any sort of satisfactory deal out of the EU has been a major bug-bear for Brexiters. So many of them bought into the bullshine that it was going to easy..... it would all be "cake-and-eat-it".... That we could leave the EU, stop paying contributions and yet still enjoy all the advantages of membership because the EU NEEDED us and apparently, Volkswagen would order Angela Merkel to make it so because we buy a lot of their cars.

Wrong on every count.

The EU, quite rightly, decided that it would consider the interests of the 27 members that remain rather than the one that is leaving.

Chief EU negotiator Jean Michel Barnier said over and over that Britain couldn't "Cherry Pick" a deal, but the British government simply pooh-pooh'd the EU stance. Boris Johnson said many times that the EU will "crack in the end and give us what we want. They always do."

Not this time, Boris.

It's all too complex to put into simple, short terms, but the bottom line is that the Leave campaign promised too much, told too many downright lies and built up a level of expectation that was always totally un-deliverable.

If you add to this electoral malpractice* that would make a banana republic blush and one of the major figures the Leave campaign, Aaron Banks, being referred to the National Crime Squad for offences which, if proven, will send him to prison for many years, it has been argued that the original referendum result cannot be trusted and if it were a General Election the result would be declared null and void.

But Brexit rumbles on because the government is determined to make it happen and the Labour opposition, led by hardline Socialist Jeremy Corbyn also want it to happen, although for reasons of Socialist Doctrine rather than rampant capitalism.

The two extreme ends of the political spectrum are out to destroy a union of, what they see as, a "liberal elite" that is attempting to unite a continent into a successful, globally effective trading bloc under humanist rules and promoting the peaceful co-existence of nations that, since the Roman Empire have, at some level, been continuously at war with each other.

The Capitalists want an "every man for himself" free for all and the Socialists see the EU as a barrier to the political expansion of Socialism.

You can't begin to believe what a mess this is. It is the most divisive issue our country has ever faced and on the continent, Britain's decision to leave has prompted a rise in the far right all over Europe with hardline nationalists everywhere trying to make their countries follow Britain's example. Nationalists in Bavaria have already stirred up race hate and won election victories that have put paid to the political career of Angela Merkel.

So it is clear that the EU cannot allow Britain to profit from Brexit. Britain cannot be allowed to get any sort of deal from the EU which would be seen as "getting their cake and eating it." To do that would only encourage the nationalists all over Europe further. The EU denies that it is making an example of Britain but that will be the final outcome.

Britain is in a hole so deep you could drop a nuke down it and not hear it hit the bottom. And it's a hole entirely of our own digging.

* Aaron Banks has already been found guilty of this and heavily fined. Fined...??? He should be behind bars.

Don’t stop it! I’d still take a no deal over staying in the insidious EU who’s over reaching goal is to create a federal states of Europe with Germany and France in the driving seat.

I wouldn’t blame Theresa either she was handed the s***ty stick by her predecessor who f***ed off because he didn’t get the result he wanted nor expected. No I’m not a Tory voter either but I’ll be damned if I vote Labour after they shafted Scotland in the independence Referendum nor while that militant w**ker is leading them

I didn’t vote leave because of any of reasons the op listed as you’d really need to be a brainless idiot to have believed any of that bulls***. I voted leave because the single goal of the EU is to create a United States of Europe with each country losing their sovereignty. To do so requires only a 60% agreement of member states, and ratification from both Houses of Parliament in Germany. No country has a veto.

Oh yeah sure a country could leave then but that’s not going to happen now that everyone has seen how badly this has went.

This is all in the EU manifesto which you can easily find via google and read. While you’re at it read about Richard Von Coudenhove-Kalergi who was instrumental in creating the beginnings of the EU all the way back to the 1920s

The Brits voted to leave. Why would the EU make it a win for the Brits. You are leaving no matter what. So May can not get any kind of good deal for you no one can IMO

Se this is the thing with the EU that remainers can't get.

We were never going to get a good deal! The EU has to be seen to be "punishing" us to dissuade other countries from even thinking about leaving. Least it falls apart. So no one was ever going to get a good deal. Germany has trillions invested in the EU, they literally prop up the economies of every other member state apart from France and The UK. If the EU was to fail it would be catastrophic for Germany and pretty hellish for France too. Before Britain joined EU we managed quite fine, we were also part of another mini EU which was based on tariff free trading of commodities such as coal, steel etc. In fact when we applied to join the EU, France tried to veto our application and were staunchly against us joining. France itself had to have two referendums itself to join the EU as it's own people were against it.

Now just so you are sure, in it's current form the EU is pretty fine and beneficial. We have a great deal of cooperation on a lot of topics such as science, trade, technology that are beneficial to the all of the world. Not just the European countries. I am not anti-EU in its current form. Even as a Scot who lives in a country with an aging population I see the benefit of immigration to our labour force and I have 0% issues with people who want to come from other countries, work, pay taxes and contribute to society. My issue is solely with the aim of the EU to become a "super europe"

Why does it need ratification from Germany? Why doesn't any country have a veto? Look just last week with the EU Commissioner saying we need an EU army to stop the threat from America, one of our closest allies.

The OP who's posts were very eloquent and well thought out was just labour rhetoric who for some reason blame this on the Tories, but even Jeremy Corbyn was a leave voter. And has remained tight lipped on this and only recently has been bashing the Tories on the deal because he wants the votes, he wants to see the Conservatives dissolve Parliament and force a general election. The Labour deputy John McDonald was even in contact last week with the Queen to ask for permission to form a government should the Tory/DUP deal fall apart

The problem was have is that along with the fact that the EU was never going to give us a good deal, we also sent a reaminer (May) to do the negotiating for us so it was in her interest not to get a good deal. A leave politician (Not Boris the halfwit Johnson) should have been in charge of the negotiating. The whole argument of "we didn't get a good deal so we should have another vote" is a terrible abuse of democracy. I along with 2.4m Scots didn't get the vote I wanted on IndyRef1 so I demand a new vote on that! TBH though I would sacrifice Scottish Independence on the basis that the SNP plan on taking us right back into the EU.

People should really do their research and stop basing the decisions on what the EU is just now and rather what they have planned for the future. It's the future that counts.

We were never going to get a good deal! The EU has to be seen to be "punishing" us to dissuade other countries from even thinking about leaving. Least it falls apart. So no one was ever going to get a good deal. Germany has trillions invested in the EU, they literally prop up the economies of every other member state apart from France and The UK. If the EU was to fail it would be catastrophic for Germany and pretty hellish for France too. Before Britain joined EU we managed quite fine, we were also part of another mini EU which was based on tariff free trading of commodities such as coal, steel etc. In fact when we applied to join the EU, France tried to veto our application and were staunchly against us joining. France itself had to have two referendums itself to join the EU as it's own people were against it.

Now just so you are sure, in it's current form the EU is pretty fine and beneficial. We have a great deal of cooperation on a lot of topics such as science, trade, technology that are beneficial to the all of the world. Not just the European countries. I am not anti-EU in its current form. Even as a Scot who lives in a country with an aging population I see the benefit of immigration to our labour force and I have 0% issues with people who want to come from other countries, work, pay taxes and contribute to society. My issue is solely with the aim of the EU to become a "super europe"

Why does it need ratification from Germany? Why doesn't any country have a veto? Look just last week with the EU Commissioner saying we need an EU army to stop the threat from America, one of our closest allies.

The OP who's posts were very eloquent and well thought out was just labour rhetoric who for some reason blame this on the Tories, but even Jeremy Corbyn was a leave voter. And has remained tight lipped on this and only recently has been bashing the Tories on the deal because he wants the votes, he wants to see the Conservatives dissolve Parliament and force a general election. The Labour deputy John McDonald was even in contact last week with the Queen to ask for permission to form a government should the Tory/DUP deal fall apart

The problem was have is that along with the fact that the EU was never going to give us a good deal, we also sent a reaminer (May) to do the negotiating for us so it was in her interest not to get a good deal. A leave politician (Not Boris the halfwit Johnson) should have been in charge of the negotiating. The whole argument of "we didn't get a good deal so we should have another vote" is a terrible abuse of democracy. I along with 2.4m Scots didn't get the vote I wanted on IndyRef1 so I demand a new vote on that! TBH though I would sacrifice Scottish Independence on the basis that the SNP plan on taking us right back into the EU.

People should really do their research and stop basing the decisions on what the EU is just now and rather what they have planned for the future. It's the future that counts.

I disagree with a number of points in your version of history.

Before Britain joined the -then - Common Market in 1973 Britain was a declining former super power. The "Sick Man Of Europe". Prime Minister Harold Wilson took the decision to devalue the pound in 1967, a decision that still reverberates today. We faced almost constant trade union militancy that could bring factories grinding to a halt at the blow of a whistle. The goods our factories made were shoddy, overpriced and seldom - if ever - delivered on time.

It was almost impossible to get a mortgage, the amount of money that could be taken out of the country on holiday was restricted and inflation ran at over 20%

Even after joining the Common Market, it still took nearly ten years to overcome the shortcomings that had become endemic in our industry. The miners strike of 1973/74 led to power cuts and fuel shortages, a three day working week and eventually, to the "Winter of Discontent" in 1978/79.

All these things came about because industrially Britain did not respond well to the loss of Empire. We'd had 100+ years of closed markets for our goods but these evaporated as colony after colony went its own way and no longer took our rubbish products.

The only way forward for Britain was to look towards Europe for our marketplace and to do that meant joining the Common Market. We joined in 1973 and by the early 1980's had recovered to a level that enabled Margaret Thatcher to de-regulate financial and business sectors which led to the modernisation of the country.

The recovery and the wealth that went with it - boosted by North Sea oil coming on stream - came about as a direct result of joining the Common Market in 1973. Margaret Thatcher made sure she took the credit though.

France didn't "attempt" to veto our application in 1973. President de Gaulle of France actually did that in 1963 and 1967. He didn,t want Britain to join because he believed the USA would use the (alleged) "Special Relationship" to flood Europe with American goods, using Britain as a back door to avoid tariffs.

De Gaulle died in 1969 and when Ted Heath became Prime Minister in 1970 he immediately re-opened negotiations for Britain to join, which the French government made only a token protest about to appease hard line Gaullists still in the French political system.

In the 1960's the chairman of the West German Free Democratic Party, Dr Erich Mende, spoke very strongly in favour of Britain’s entry into the Common Market but was unable to influence de Gaulle. So much for a German domination. If the Germans had been so powerful, why could they not influence the French..?

Every EU member DOES have a veto. They all do. We did, which was how we negotiated our way to keep sterling and not adopt the Euro. We threatened to veto the whole Euro concept if the EU attempted to impose it here. Brussels agreed for Britain to retain sterling to stave off the British veto.

Spain is threatening to veto future British trade deals with Europe if it doesn't get negotiations over the future of Gibraltar. Is that veto enough for you..?

The so-called EU army is not what it is being purported to be. It is not intended to have an EU force in the strictest sense of the word. It will not have an EU chain of command. It will not have its own flags and regiments and logistics, etc. It is intended as an agreement between EU member states. An alliance that will be there to help resolve issues that may affect EU member states from outside threats.

Such a coalition would have been priceless in stemming the flow of refugees through the Mediterranean. Instead, nobody wanted to take responsibility ... certainly not NATO... and so they came. in their hundreds of thousands. And where has that led us to...?

NATO is becoming weak. USA is questioning why it should bear such a burden for the safety of Europe. Trump doesn't want to finance American forces in Europe. If NATO becomes ineffective, what will deter Russian aggression..?

A multi-national coalition not dominated by an American regime that no longer wants to ally itself with the "old world" as it sees us, is necessary to deter the increasing threat from Russia. Britain would not have to give over control of its nuclear forces as some are alleging. Project Fear works both ways, you know.

I could go on, but this is already a long enough post and debunks most of what you argue above.

You tell me I should do my research. Well, it seems to me that you have an inadequate knowledge of the history of Britain and it's post-war social and industrial development. Perhaps it's YOU who needs remedial history lessons.

Interesting as it was it was history and not what the point of argument was. My issue isn’t with the history of the EU or even the present EU, although if you can’t see how insidious it is then quite frankly I’m amazed. False sense of security. The issue I have is with it’s future, it’s what it’s fated to become and no, none of the countries have a veto on the integration and formation of a United States of Europe.

Did you read about Cudenhove? How back in the 1920s free movement was encouraged with established routes of travel with the intention of denationalisation of countries and to make countries more “European”

I’m sorry, I’m not European, I’m British and quite happy to remain so. Let Brexit continue and stop asking for new votes just because you didn’t like the result of the first one.

Interesting as it was it was history and not what the point of argument was. My issue isn’t with the history of the EU or even the present EU, although if you can’t see how insidious it is then quite frankly I’m amazed. False sense of security. The issue I have is with it’s future, it’s what it’s fated to become and no, none of the countries have a veto on the integration and formation of a United States of Europe.

Did you read about Cudenhove? How back in the 1920s free movement was encouraged with established routes of travel with the intention of denationalisation of countries and to make countries more “European”

I’m sorry, I’m not European, I’m British and quite happy to remain so. Let Brexit continue and stop asking for new votes just because you didn’t like the result of the first one.

You're welcome to the history lesson. You were in dire need of one.

You call yourself British and yet you tell me not to exercise my democratic freedom to call for another vote.

Which one of us is the behaving like a dictator...?

I can call for anything I like. That is what liberty, freedom and democracy means. Whether or not I get what I want is outside of my control. But I'll call for it just the same because until you or anybody else from the Alt-Right run the country, it's my lawful right to do so.

The EU is labelled “undemocratic” and yet a private citizen, Gina Miller, had to take the British government to court in order to get a democratic vote for Parliament over Article 50. The government wanted to railroad any Brexit arrangements through without Parliamentary consultation or opposition. How is that “democratic”? The only reason there will be a vote in Parliament on December 12 is because one woman spoke up.

Giving the people a voice. You Brexiters really hate that, don't you...?

And yes, I know about Cudenhove.

And I know a bit more history too. Get this, it's an article from a British national daily newspaper.

“Every civilised people on the face of the Earth must be fully aware that this country (Great Britain) is the asylum of nations and we will defend the asylum to the last ounce of its treasure and the last drop of its blood. There is no point whatsoever of which we are prouder and more resolute.

This was from a lead article in The Times, written in 1853.

Today, nobody - including me - believes that Britain should welcome literally anyone. But in the mid 19th century this was not the viewpoint of an idealistic fringe, it was mainstream opinion.

The ‘open door’ was at the heart of British identity. It was felt that we had a duty to accept anyone to these shores with no passport, no visa or letter of introduction, just a metaphorical handshake and the confident assumption that the newcomer would, in due course, contribute to the greatness of our country.

There was a reason why Britain thought it was the greatest, most civilised culture the world had ever seen. We had just abolished slavery, we’d emancipated Catholics and Jews and the Victorians saw themselves as the leaders of the free world, not just the greatest imperial power in the world. So it was an act of moral leadership and a statement of pride.

Of course times change and I don't advocate such a policy today. That would be stupid. But it illustrates how those who like to puff our their chests, proclaim their Britishness and bleat about sovereignty know nothing of the values and traditions of the society (The Victorians) who led the country through that period that they (the Brexiters) consider to be the very pinnacle of our history

An interesting evasion by Theresa May on the BBC 6 o clock news just a few minutes ago. Being interviewed by Laura Kuennssberg she was asked "If your deal does not get passed by Parliament on 12 December will you call a second referendum..?"

She replied evasively "I'm concentrating on the vote in Parliament."

When Kuenssberg repeated the question she became even more evasive.

Up to now, the Prime Minister has repeated, at every opportunity, that "There WILL BE NO second referendum", and "Britain WILL LEAVE THE EU on 29 March."

Now she's dodging the question. She can't say she would call another referendum, but she is no longer ruling it out.

I know Brexiters will say this is clutching at straws, but it's a shift. It's a moving away from her hitherto cast-iron position.

At the G10 Summit in Argentina, EU representatives re-iterated that there will be no further negotiation. What is on the table is all there is. Take it or leave it. That's the choice before Parliament and right now, it looks like they'll leave it.

Harold Wilson once said "A week is a long time in politics." She's got two weeks to sweat out. And there is as yet no sign that anybody is moving on their position.

I've already said I have no issues with immigration. But why should we limit this to what the EU tells us? I'm from Scotland, we are a very welcoming nation. Also as I said we need immigration due to low birth rate and a aging population. My best mate is Polish, he also voted leave. He makes a really funny joke about how the Ukrainians are coming to the UK to steal our jobs.......

I have no issues with free trade but why can't we make the deals with whom we want, not who the EU tells us we can?

You go on about your democratic right to another vote. This is true, you have a right to campaign/ask for another vote but asking for one because you didn't like the result of the first one is not democratic. The majority voted for Brexit, get over it an move on and do something else constructive with your life. I get the sense that in a couple of years time you'll be campaigning about some other bulls*** that insulted your sensibilities. Typical twitter generation, "it is my right to be offended..."

As my work collegaue is fond of saying "f***ing millennials and their self rightousness"

You paint brexiteers as dumb UKIP voters who were misled by promises of NHS funds and a land of milk and honey. Which is simply not true, it's just remainer rhetoric to add fuel to your cause.

I'm curious though, and seriously you have made very thoughtful educated posts, in part i'm just trolling you because I love watching you get all wound up and on your high horse. I can't fault your passion but why you haven't addressed the EU in the future? Which is my main argument.

I have to ask seriously here. What does the future of the UK look like to a person who supports Brexit? I've heard much speculation on what The EU will look like in the future, and why the UK has to leave because of it, but I've not come across much detailing what the UK might look like in the future after Brexit.

I ask simply because I've never been able to escape the feeling that the UK is attempting to dodge a car only to get hit by a train.